ETHICS AS GOVERNANCE
https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-4-135-146
Abstract
The article deals with the governance potential of complex social and humanitarian programs that are developing as additional components of large scientific and technical projects. They promptly respond to emerging challenges and do not require long negotiations and agreements at the level of national or international legislation. The study of institutional structures and functions of new types of ethics makes it possible to understand how social knowledge and the humanities participate in normative and political discourses of governance that are structuring relationships of technoscience and society.
About the Author
E. G. Grebenshchikova
Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Йонас Г. Принцип ответственности. Опыт этики для технологической цивилизации. М.: Айрис-пресс, 2004.
2. Лепский В. Е. Эволюция представлений об управлении (методологический и философский анализ). М.: «Когито-Центр», 2015.
3. Пронин М. А., Юдин Б. Г., Синеокая Ю. В. Философия как экспертиза // Философский журнал. 2017. Т. 10. № 2. С. 79-96.
4. Тищенко П. Д., Юдин Б. Г. Социогуманитарное сопровождение инновационных проектов в биомедицине // Знание. Понимание. Умение. 2016. № 2. С. 73-86.
5. Юдин Б. Г. Выступление на «круглом столе» // Мораль в современном мире и проблемы российской этики. М.; СПб.: ЦГИ «Принт»,2017. С. 128-131.
6. Cath C. et al. Artificial Intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: the US, EU, and UK approach // Science and engineering ethics. 2018. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 505-528.
7. European Commission (EC). Responsible Research and Innovation. Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges. 2012. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_public_engagement/responsibleresearch-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf. (дата обращения 11.09.2018).
8. Hilgartner S., Prainsack B., Hurlbut J. B. Ethics as governance in genomics and beyond // The Handbook of science and technology studies. 2017. P. 823-851.
9. Jasanoff S., Kim S. H. Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea // Minerva. 2009. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 119-146.
10. Liang X. et al. Value predispositions as perceptual filters: Comparing of public attitudes toward nanotechnology in the United States and Singapore // Public Understanding of Science. 2015. Vol. 24. No. 5. P. 582-600.
11. Mohr A., Raman S. Representing the public in public engagement: The case of the 2008 UK stem cell dialogue // PLoS biology. 2012. Vol. 10. No. 11. P. 1-7.
12. Montgomery J. Bioethics as a governance practice // Health Care Analysis. 2016. Vol. 24. No. 1. P. 3-23.
13. Pickersgill M. The co-production of science, ethics, and emotion // Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2012. Vol. 37. No. 6. P. 579-603.
14. Strand R., Kaiser M. Report on ethical issues raised by emerging sciences and technologies / Report written for the Council of Europe, Committee on Bioethics. 2015. 23 January. URL: https://rm.coe.int/168030751d. (дата обращения 11.09.2018).
15. Tutton R. Promising pessimism: reading the futures to be avoided in biotech // Social Studies of Science. 2011. Vol. 41. No. 3. Р. 411-429.
Review
For citations:
Grebenshchikova E.G. ETHICS AS GOVERNANCE. Siberian Journal of Philosophy. 2018;16(4):135-146. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-4-135-146
Views:
190
Email this article 